Fahie Arrest Surprised Us
Former Governor Augustus Jaspert and ex-Police Commissioner Michael Matthews say they had no advance notice of the US-UK operation that led to former Premier Andrew Fahie’s arrest and later conviction. The men told The Guardian they were excluded from back-channel discussions between the UK’s National Crime Agency and the US DEA and feared for their safety as local institutions weakened.
Former Governor Augustus Jaspert and former Police Commissioner Michael Matthews have repeated that they were not informed in advance of the operation that led to former Premier Andrew Fahie’s arrest and subsequent conviction, telling The Guardian the two were left out of back-channel discussions between British and US agencies.
The Guardian article, published on December 9, says the UK’s National Crime Agency (NCA) approached the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) by the end of autumn 2020. According to the report, those talks were not shared with Jaspert or Matthews, who say they learned of the scope of the operation only later and were surprised by the tactics used.
Jaspert has previously said concerns about corruption in the Territory prompted him to call for a formal inquiry. Matthews acknowledged rumours he had heard linking Andrew Fahie with known drug traffickers, but both men have strongly denied any role in setting up or participating in an entrapment operation.
They also declined to disclose details of conversations they may have had with British authorities. The Guardian reports that Jaspert and Matthews felt isolated and worried their offices might be bugged; they began meeting in remote locations out of concern for their safety. UK officials have maintained that on-the-ground representatives in the BVI were not privy to the DEA’s plan.
Critics, however, have accused the UK of collaborating with US authorities or of acting with political motives when the Commission of Inquiry (COI) report was released at the same time as Fahie’s arrest. The article painted a stark picture of the BVI as a global secrecy jurisdiction — highlighting shell companies, offshore secrecy, weak oversight and opportunities for money laundering — and argued that years of misgovernance weakened institutions and created space for illicit finance.
That characterisation has resonated poorly for many residents, who see the territory’s reputation and economic pillars — tourism, financial services and trust in local governance — under threat. For Virgin Islanders, the episode raises enduring questions about transparency, accountability and the balance between international law enforcement cooperation and local sovereignty.
Calls for clear answers — about what was known by whom, why local officials were not informed, and how the Territory’s institutions will be strengthened to prevent future abuse — are likely to continue as relations with the UK and international partners are reassessed. As debate continues, many in the BVI are urging renewed investment in oversight, stronger safeguards for public office, and an openness from both local and UK authorities to ensure the Territory’s governance and reputation are restored and protected.
Primary source: BVI News